Yes points
- HRA 1998. Section 3 - for judges to interpret all UK law in line with the European Convention of human rights e.g Ghaidan v Godin Mendoza
-Section 4 - allows for judiciary to make declaration of incompatibility if UK statute isn't in line with the ECHR e.g. Bellinger v Bellinger (resulting in the gender recognition act) and
- Further separation of powers through constitutional reform act 2005, establishing separate Supreme Court (more ready to challenge Statutory disregard for HR?)
- Judicial Review for if state bodies act ultra vires (beyond conferred powers), using methods such as 'Wednesbury unreasonableness', 'procedural impropriety', 'illegality' and 'proportionality' e.g. Pham 2015 (prevention of suspected terrorist losing their 'right to rights')
- common law protection of rights e.g. Entick v Carrington
Changing concept of constitution allowing for greater protection of human rights e.g. Bi-polar sovereignty, Knight - sovereignty both resides with the crown in courts and the crown in Parliament.. empowerment of courts mean they are more equipped to protect rights? E.g. Legally constitutionalist perspective of Neuberger in R (Evans) v Attorney General "decisions of a court is binding... cannot be ignored... fundamental to the rule of law that decisions and actions of the executive are... reviewable by the court at the suit of an interested citizen"
No
- Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty central to U.K. Constitution (A.V. Dicey - introduction to the constitution)... Allowing Parliament to 'make or unmake any law' examples of Parliamentary sovereignty in law: Madzimbamuto v Lardner Burke, Thoburn v Sunderland city council, Pickin v British Railroad
- Judiciary don't commonly make Declarations of incompatibility under s4 e.g. Nicklinson 2014
- Human Rights are more so protected via political accountability rather than constitutional arrangements, since Parliament wouldn't infringe explicitly on rights the electorate hold dear (Read Adam Tomkins on political accountability)